Paragraph

 1 1 |         same way both reasoning and refutation are sometimes genuine, sometimes
 2 1 |       through what has been stated: refutation is reasoning involving the
 3 1 |           exists both reasoning and refutation that is apparent but not
 4 3 |           These are five in number, refutation, fallacy, paradox, solecism,
 5 4 |             There are two styles of refutation: for some depend on the
 6 4 |             upon ignorance of what "refutation" is:~(4) that which depends
 7 5 |       because the terms "proof" or "refutation" have not been defined,
 8 5 |          and give a merely apparent refutation, showing (e.g.) that the
 9 5 |           time: and therefore their refutation is merely apparent. One
10 5 |          and what is different.~The refutation which depends upon the consequent
11 5 |             must be in a fever.~The refutation which depends upon treating
12 5 |             argument, as though the refutation depended upon it. This kind
13 5 |           often be thought that the refutation depends upon it, e.g. in
14 5 |          are exposed to an apparent refutation. Thus "Is A and is B a man?" "
15 5 |       expose himself to an apparent refutation or to make an apparently
16 5 |     actually give rise to a genuine refutation; e.g. suppose a man were
17 6 |           all to ignorance of what "refutation" is, and make that our starting-point:
18 6 |     breaches of the definition of a refutation. In the first place, we
19 6 |             should be as well, if a refutation or proof is to be effected;
20 6 |   definition ought to hold good of "refutation" too, except that a mention
21 6 | contradictory" is here added: for a refutation is a proof of the contradictory.
22 6 |            of anything, there is no refutation. For supposing, when A and
23 6 |           in other cases. If, then, refutation is a proof, an argument
24 6 |             accidens could not be a refutation. It is, however, just in
25 6 |            science generally suffer refutation at the hand of the unscientific:
26 6 |    absolutely, he does not effect a refutation, but merely appears to do
27 6 |          owing to ignorance of what refutation is.~The clearest cases of
28 6 |           upon the definition of a "refutation": and this is also why they
29 6 |             For the appearance of a refutation is produced because of the
30 6 |             this is the ground of a refutation dependent on the consequent.
31 6 |    consequent. Inasmuch, then, as a refutation depending on accident consists
32 6 |     consists in ignorance of what a refutation is, clearly so also does
33 6 |              clearly so also does a refutation depending on the consequent.
34 6 |        starts from propositions and refutation is a proof, refutation,
35 6 |          and refutation is a proof, refutation, too, will start from propositions.
36 6 |     consists in ignorance of what a refutation is: for in it what is not
37 6 |           question, there will be a refutation; while if he has returned
38 6 |           there will be an apparent refutation of his thesis. All the types
39 6 |           under ignorance of what a refutation is, some of them because
40 6 |           the distinctive mark of a refutation, is merely apparent, and
41 7 | imperfection in the definition of a refutation, and with those that depend
42 8 |            depend. By a sophistical refutation and syllogism I mean not
43 8 |             not only a syllogism or refutation which appears to be valid
44 8 |         conclusions and an apparent refutation depend must be the same
45 8 |             number. Now an apparent refutation depends upon the elements
46 8 |        other of these must make the refutation merely apparent, e.g. that
47 8 |            aforesaid.~A sophistical refutation is a refutation not absolutely
48 8 |         sophistical refutation is a refutation not absolutely but relatively
49 9 |         faculty. And as regards the refutation that is according to one
50 9 |     dialecticians so to examine the refutation that proceeds from the common
51 9 |      current on that subject. For a refutation is the proof of the contradictory
52 9 |          contradictory constitute a refutation. We grasp, then, the number
53 9 |       common first principles, of a refutation that is either real or apparent,
54 10|        altogether absurd to discuss Refutation without first discussing
55 10|             discussing Proof: for a refutation is a proof, so that one
56 10|             before describing false refutation: for a refutation of that
57 10|             false refutation: for a refutation of that kind is a merely
58 10|     sometimes it is in both, if the refutation be merely apparent. In the
59 11|           All, then, are engaged in refutation; for they take a hand as
60 15|              15~With a view then to refutation, one resource is length-for
61 15|            one’s argument, either a refutation or a paradox is bound to
62 15|            if he grants the view, a refutation; if he refuses to grant
63 15|      opinion, something very like a refutation, results.~Moreover, just
64 15|           so also in those aimed at refutation, you should examine the
65 17|            appearance of it. For if refutation be an unambiguous contradiction
66 17|     conclusion reached looks like a refutation. What, then, we have to
67 17|              conceal even a genuine refutation, and make it uncertain who
68 17|          term or the amphiboly, the refutation would not have been a matter
69 17|           turns upon ambiguity is a refutation, it will be impossible for
70 17|          either, but either genuine refutation or none. For what is the
71 17|             is a point upon which a refutation often depends.~If one is
72 17|            this that the consequent refutation depends. For example, "Is
73 19|            lie in the conclusion no refutation takes place unless the sophist
74 19|          contradiction there was no refutation. Whenever, on the other
75 19|          that therefore there is no refutation.~
76 20|         Some people solve this last refutation in another way as well.
77 22|        grants that that was so, the refutation will be effected.~Like the
78 22|          solve it as they solve the refutation of the view that "what a
79 25|         respect, there is as yet no refutation. This is a feature one has
80 26|       depend on the definition of a refutation must, according to the plan
81 26|          was agreed to constitute a refutation of your case. All the following
82 27|          brought no argument: for a refutation must be proved independently
83 30|           is not what we meant by a refutation. But it is clear that if
84 33|        belongs, and whether it is a refutation or not a refutation, is
85 33|            is a refutation or not a refutation, is not equally easy in